Superior Court

Where a defendant bank has moved for summary judgment on a plaintiff employee’s claims, the motion must be denied with respect to the plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim because genuine issues of fact exist, but the motion must be allowed with respect to her sexual harassment claim, given that she cannot demonstrate that she worked in a sexually hostile environment.

Where a District Court judge upheld a decision by the Registry of Motor Vehicles suspending a plaintiff’s driver’s license for three years based on his refusal to submit to a chemical test, the plaintiff should be denied certiorari relief, as the ‘Refusal Report’ met statutory requirements.

Where an attorney and his wife recorded a declaration of an estate of homestead after a former client obtained a default judgment against the attorney on claims of legal malpractice and violation of G.L.c. 93A, the amount owed on the judgment is exempt from the protection afforded by the homestead declaration.

Where a plaintiff’s complaint alleges fraud, unjust enrichment and a violation of G.L.c. 93A arising out of her purchase in 2002 of residential property, which was refinanced twice, the complaint must be dismissed on limitations grounds.

Where a plaintiff construction company, claiming to be owed sums by a project owner, has brought suit against a defendant bank that made construction loans to the owner, the complaint must be dismissed because (1) the bank owed neither a duty of care nor a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff, (2) the plaintiff was neither a party to the construction loan agreement nor a third-party beneficiary and (3) the bank did not engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

Where the plaintiff has filed a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendant bank from foreclosing on her property, the bank is correct in claiming that while a loan modification proposal was made by a prior loan servicing agent, the plaintiff and that entity never came to terms, and therefore the bank cannot be bound.

Where the plaintiff sued the commonwealth of Massachusetts under the recreational use statute, G.L.c. 21, §17C, after he was injured in the parking lot of the Mystic River Reservation, summary judgment for the commonwealth is proper because the record evidence in this case consists of several emails created more than four years after the incident, shedding no light on whether the commonwealth's conduct was wilful, wanton, or reckless.

Where (1) a lawsuit has been brought regarding a construction project and (2) the parties disagree about the discoverability of documents concerning Environmental Health and Engineering, Inc. (EH&E), which began working on the project as an ad hoc consultant engineer and later contracted to provide litigation support services, information known by EH&E prior to Oct. 8, 2008 is subject to discovery by the plaintiff.

Where the plaintiff bank has sued the defendants, a company and its individual employee, for failure to repay a business line of credit, the employee’s motion for summary judgment must be allowed given that he was not a party to any contract with the bank.